John Stuart Mill Death Penalty Analysis

The topic of the death penalty has been considered a controversial issue for over two hundred years. Numerous public figures, world leaders, and renowned philosophers have made their opinions and theories known; yet, there is no universally accepted answer to whether or not capital punishment is morally and lawfully permissible. Despite hundreds of years of discrepancies, philosophers John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant seem to agree with many aspects of the death penalty. Through the documentation of their philosophical theories, Mill and Kant are able to express their beliefs and concerns to a broad audience; Mill using his notable address to British parliament, “In Favor of Capital Punishment” and Kant through his scholarly writing, The …show more content…
His ranking of higher order and lower order also holds true when considering punishments. When considering the death penalty, Mill felt so strongly as to address the British Parliament with his speech, “In Favor of Capital Punishment.” In his 1868 speech, Mill argues that the greatest crimes can only be appropriately condemned by means of judicial execution. Mill is a firm believer that execution is the only way to properly condemn extremely radical crimes. In his own words, if the death penalty is not enforced, “its adoption would be almost tantamount to giving up the attempt to repress murder altogether” …show more content…
Those close to the criminal have likely committed no wrong action; yet, after the criminal’s execution, his/her suffering ends and the family is left in sorrow for the remainder of their lives. If the said offender is a murderer, he/she has already inflicted enough pain to innocent people, supporting his capital punishment furthers this adversity for even more faultless victims. Execution terminates the criminal’s discipline in an instant, while a life-time sentence provides everlasting suffering for the offender as well as less misery for those close to